SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Freshwater fish diversity is harmed as much by selective logging in rainforests as they are by complete deforestation, according to a new study.
Researchers had expected the level of damage would rise depending on the amount of logging and were surprised to discover the impact of removing relatively few trees.
[...] Lead author Clare Wilkinson, from the Department of Life Sciences at Imperial, said: "That such a small change can impact fish biodiversity is shocking and worrying. We expected to see a gradient from least affected in the selectively logged areas, to heavily impacted for the streams in oil palm plantations. Instead, we saw almost the same level of fish biodiversity loss in all altered environments."
[...] Researchers believe the reasons for these dramatic changes are likely to be down to a range of factors that affect stream habitats when trees are lost. Trees provide shade, creating cooler patches of stream that many fish need to spawn. Older, taller trees provide more of this shade, but they are the ones usually removed in selective logging. Leaf litter from these trees also helps to keep the streams cool and to concentrate food sources.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday April 21 2018, @01:19PM (9 children)
As a fisherman, I feel there's something you science guys should be informed of that everyone who's held a fishing pole already knows. Fish move around a hell of a lot depending on about a gerzillion and one factors (air pressure, air temperature, wind speed, water temperature, time of year, cloud cover, the weather today, the weather for the past week, position of the sun, position of the moon, position of both relative to each other, location of the food they prefer at the moment given all of the above, and quite a lot more). Counting the numbers in one portion of a river at two different points in time is not going give you data valid to anyconclusion. It takes years of checking multiple points of the same body of water regularly to accurately predict how many of which fish are going to be in which bit of it at any given time.
Is large changes in the amount of shade over a bit of the river going to affect it? Probably. Is it going to kill off a species? Bloody unlikely. It'll far more likely just make them move a bit upstream or downstream.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday April 21 2018, @02:21PM (5 children)
My son, Donald Jr., is a tremendous fisherman. He loves to fish for sharks. I don't go fishing a lot, I'm the environmentalist of the family. I looked at the pictures. Let me tell you, these folks caught more fish than I've caught in my entire life. And I looked at the video -- fabulous production values. They say they have the BIGGEST experiment. But, maybe not big enough! youtu.be/yco5xhShYFs [youtu.be]
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday April 21 2018, @02:41PM (4 children)
Fishermen are environmentalists, idjit. Nobody wants their favorite fishing spot ruined.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @12:27AM (1 child)
So funny if not so sad.
PS. You are retarded if you voted Parent Post as insightful.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 22 2018, @12:45AM
Ahhh, you must be one of those sad little dweebs who think that it's perfectly fine for any organism except humans to eat other animals. Live with it. We're nothing special, just a hairless ape with delusions of grandeur. Some more deluded than others.
And, yes, most conservationists who do any actual work (not just pissing and moaning) have always been fishermen and hunters. Nobody wants their favorite pastime fucked up by inconsiderate shitheads.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Sunday April 22 2018, @09:12PM (1 child)
I’m a very big person when it comes to the environment. I have received awards on the environment. Donald Jr., great shark fisherman. He does the catch & release. Which doesn't harm the sharks. And I'm thinking, please don't be too nice. But no awards for him. Not yet. Donald & Eric, terrific hunters. They go to Africa, they hunt, it's great for the economy there. And it's great for the animals. Because if nobody hunts them, what are they worth? Not much. But, no awards for that. I got so many awards. These SAFE folks, they're tremendous at fishing. They caught an amazing amout of fish. But very environmental. They're figuring out how to have huge plantations with great environmental. Trying to figure that out. And you're helping with that, "informing" them about their mistakes. You can be very proud!!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 22 2018, @09:56PM
Catch and release is for carpetbagging, snare-drumming, yankee lawyers. Being part of the food chain is just a part of existence for every living thing (you've got a date to be bacteria/worm chow yourself) but killing for nothing but pleasure is fucked up. And yes, catch and release does kill fish. Every now and then one will swallow the hook/lure/etc... and that's pretty much guaranteed death.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 21 2018, @04:36PM
And of course it *must* be the cut down trees. Which makes it very surprising indeed to find not a trace of proportionality to the amount of logging.
It cannot be dripping diesel fuel or toxic hydraulic fluids, people (at first: loggers) dropping plastics garbage left and right, which is not only a big problem in Malaysia generally but is also well known to leak stuff acting hormonally in fish. It also can't possibly be people pissing antibiotics and human hormones ("the pill" is known to act in fish) .... I could go on. No it must be the cut trees.
Don't get me wrong: I also think we need preservation, here, there, everywhere, and in Malaysia. But I also think scientists should give us scientifically established knowledge, and not alarmist "Stop everything now!!". No matter how appropriate that may be (!), it always makes scientists look like loonies. Which does not help. At all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @05:19AM (1 child)
Shade is a big thing, esp to fish that have evolved to live in forest rivers. Fish get sunburn and try to avoid predators from above.
As a fisherman be aware that shade can be used to catch fish. Even birds use it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlV9HNAUVfQ [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 22 2018, @10:26AM
Yes, and if shade disappears in one area, the fish will move to an area in the river where it hasn't. Which was the point of my original post. Any study that doesn't take into account the fact that fish can and will move around according to changing conditions isn't worth the time it took to type it. I've nothing against being good stewards of the environment, quite the opposite, but it has to be done honestly and thoroughly rather than based on knee-jerk emotional reactions.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.